Sorcerer

I was thinking about the objection to there being a singularity based on the cosmological principle and realised how this violates the isotropic and homogenous nature. I was thinking of 3D from 1 moment to the next, but not of the following moments in 4D, so missed that it was an anomally, which stands out against the rest of time. So for example at no other point in 4D does the universe gain dimensions and this makes that moment anisotropic. However, there are a few moments like this at the beginning of the universe which also are anomalous. For instance at no other point in time does the universe undergo recombination change phase from plasma to gas and have photons decouple from matter. So this moment, ironically, being anisotropic in time also creates evidence for isotrophy. All I can really say on these anomalies to resolves them with regards to the cosmological principle is that just as we ignore the small scale fluctuations over 3D which statistically even out so we can regard the universe as isotropic and homogenous. So too we can ignore the few points in the universes evolution where anomalous events occur, because on the larger scale of time, these events are statistically irrelevant. So again I come to the conclusion that the cosmological principle does not deny there being a change from a singularity to a 3 dimensional universe at the first moment of time.

Yes but if it has a value at every point, at which scale does this matter, does it make any sense going past certain sizes? Because if it's meaningless at certain scales, as the distance between 2 points increase, points on a scale which would otherwise be too small to be meanigful would cross that threshold.

Just reading up on the higgs. Since scalar fields have a value over every point in space, when space expands and more points in space are created, does that mean that the higgs field and its corresponding particle is the only particle of the standard model for which energy density remains constant and doesn't decrease as space expands? What does it mean when they say the higgs does not transform under Lorentz transformations? Is it independant of time? Also what does it mean to have a point in space, is it the mathematical 1 dimensional space time point or are points in space measured by a planck length? If it is the 1 dimensional point, since there is an infinte ammount of points between any 2 points (or greater number of points). How is the energy of the higgs field retained at a non infinite value when measured cumulatively over any distance, area or volume? Does that matter at all to anything though?

Yes, thanks Strange, it was a good point the first time I read it too. Is it quantum fluctuations are responsible for creating anisotrophy which must be quickly evened out by inflation? If so, aren't quantum fluctuations a probalistic effect that occur equally over all points in space? Aren't they them isotropic and homogenous. Why is it necessary that quantum fluctuations in the early universe create anisotropic effects?

So, it could be the flying spaghetti monster for 10-49 seconds then.

I would be hard to conduct experiements under the conditions that existed in the first 10-49 seconds after the big bang though, so our testing is inherently rather biased.

Well that's been the idea for a few decades now I guess. Yes I agree its a good aproximation, but, the good and poor adjectives are subjective, I think approximation is the key word. What is with the 10-49 Seconds anyway, why isn't that 0 then? Is that the time it takes for POINT to become a sphere with a planck length diameter?

Then if you need to abandon the singularity because the theories predictions are self defeated, you should abandon the entire theory itself. Or atleast understand it is a poor aproximation of reality. I think it was general relativity or is that what you mean by classical? What is with the 10-49 Seconds anyway, why isn't that 0 then? Is that the time it takes for POINT to become a sphere with a planck length diameter?

That was pointed out the theory only describes the universe from a time of 10-49 seconds onwards (according to what Mordred posted before). But the reasoning that lead to the creation of the idea, inevitably leads to the crossing of spacetime at the origin, where it has no volume and is infinitely dense. This logical consequence was abandoned because we lack the tools to describe it with our current knowledge. But that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't what happened before that. It doen't necessarily mean it is either, however that would be the conclusion from the reasoning which first created the theory. The fact that you need to give a time of 10-49 seconds, implies that time before it.

Yes, yes, but I had objection to there not being an explosion, it is not necessary for a point or singularity to be viewed as an explosion, when it moves from 0 spatial dimension to 3. Why would you consider 0 dimension changing to 3 dimensions an explosion? A point in the middle of a sphere is equidistant from the edge and thus the dimensional change is isotropic and homogenous, but there is no increase in volume, just the dimensional shift to it, its illogical to consider no volume becoming volume an increase. Just as it would be illogical to consider a point a shorter line, than a line segment, because it isn't a line. It is also illogical to consider there being a change in direction, a point has 2 cooridinates but this one has no reference so they are meaningless and there is no time, there is no direction and there can't be change when time begins after the point. Maybe if you have to use calculus, you will find that your argument holds, but calculus is only an approximation. It can only describe limits as they approach 0, never actually 0 itself.

I understand this. But I was just wondering what part of the cosmological principle tells us "that the Universe did not have an origin point nor is the result of an explosion." The Big Bang model, if it only describes time from 10-49 seconds onwards doesn't tell us that the universe did not have an orgin point. It doesn't tell us anything about time before then. The logical reasoning which led to the big bang theory, can still be taken to its conclusion and lead to a singularity. Just because current science, (or any science ever), can't explain it doesn't invalidate extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity to yield an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.

Why? What causes it to develop anisotropy regions under non-inflation expansion models of the Big Bang? Classical models of the Big Bang have a very obvious point where everything is causally connected in the past and was small enough in volume that thermodynamic processes could balance out in a uniform homogeneous and isotropic state. It is the moment directly after the Big Bang, or the singularity itself, if you allow it to exist. From wiki: Is Roger Penrose's objection a relevant one?

I'm sorry, I don't how the cosmological principle prevents an origin point. An origin point is perfectly isotropic and homogenous. If you take the balloon analogy and interpolate, you end up with all 3 points converging, the same ratio of change still occurs between points at all times even at the first (or last) instant, when it is undefined for all of them, only the angles drop to 0 at 0 distance between points. And I don't see how this violates the principle. Am I missing something? By origin point, I assume you mean as in a mathematical point, one of 0 size, what about an origin point of non zero size?

The horizon problem explanation in the wiki article on inflation is a little more clear, however I am still not understanding its reasoning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation#Horizon_problem It says that in the traditional big bang model areas of the universe do not have enough time to equilibrate because a particle horizon seperates them. I don't understand, they started at equilibrium, why do they need time to do nothing? Also I found a way to word the large scale uniformity of the universe which doesn't conflict with my semantics. "Statisically Isotropic".

About as close as wiki gets to a mention is: This wording is saying that the universe BEGAN anisotropic. It should deal with the time frame between the moment of the Big Bang and the beggining of inflation, in which quantum fluctuations could cause the universe to become anisotropic. However, since quantum fluctuations are a probabalistic thing, there isn't any reason to assume certainty in their occurance at any specific time. Did they HAVE to occur?

Why do the quantum fluctuations need to come after the initial inflation? What model suggests they occur at such large scales that it is necessary for inflation to even them out? This however isn't mentioned in the wiki article on the Horizon problem. Wiki says variously unexplained things like this. With no reason why that would be expected, the two galaxys came from the same initial universe, their properties should be similar. In regards to the pool ball, I disagree, the ball isn't PERFECTLY smooth. It's a sloppy aproximation of language, to use something which defines an object as pefectly something to describe something which isn't. Pseudoisotropic, I could've accepted. Don't get me wrong I like the inflation hypothesis, but for other things it explains, it's just that I thought it odd that one of the problems it was attempting to solve seemed to be made up from an unecessary assumption for the express purpose.

" Effects of asymmetriesEventually, it was shown that new inflation does not produce a perfectly symmetric universe, but that tiny quantum fluctuations in the inflaton are created. These tiny fluctuations form the primordial seeds for all structure created in the later universe.[53] These fluctuations were first calculated by Viatcheslav Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov in the Soviet Union in analyzing Starobinsky's similar model.[54][55][56] In the context of inflation, they were worked out independently of the work of Mukhanov and Chibisov at the three-week 1982 Nuffield Workshop on the Very Early Universe at Cambridge University.[57] The fluctuations were calculated by four groups working separately over the course of the workshop: Stephen Hawking;[58] Starobinsky;[59] Guth and So-Young Pi;[60] and James M. Bardeen, Paul Steinhardt and Michael Turner.[61]" So they want something that makes the universe isotropic, because it might have started anisotropic. But then go ahead and show that it makes the universe anisotropic?

@ Mordred : So you're saying that the horizon problem isn't a necessarily even a problem? But if it were, inflation solves it? But the inflation model was made to solve this problem among 2 others, if there wasn't necessarily a problem, then what is the need for a solution to it, why not just assume it was already isotropic? And further to that, if it was exactly isotropic, what model would allow for that to be changed, since we observe an (however slightly) anisotropic universe? Why assume either is necessary, why shouldn't it just have been the right ammount of uniformity to begin with? If it's anisotropic at small scales it is anisotropic at any scale. "The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), which fills the universe, is almost precisely the same temperature everywhere in the sky, about 2.728 +/- 0.004 K. The differences in temperature are so slight that it has only recently become possible to develop instruments capable of making the required measurements." Isotropic is defined as being uniform in all orientations. "almost precisely" isn't precisely = not uniform = anisotropic. Differences, no matter how slight, are differences. To be uniform and thus isotropic, there cannot be any differences. It's like saying a pool ball is perfectly smooth, then looking at it under a microscope, seeing how rough it is and then demanding that it is still perfectly smooth. ______________________________________________________________________________ Inflation doesn't sit well with Occams razor, it is making up a mechanism to account for variables that could have just been that way to begin with. What mechanism created the variables which made inflation be that way to begin with and..... that line of reasoning can go to infinity.

I was just reading over the horizon problem wiki. And the whole issue lies around the assumption the universe began anisotropic. I would have assumed the universe began isotropic and the problem would be reversed, why isn't it still exactly isotropic? There a numerous semantic and logic failures in the article too. Oxymorons such as "almost precisely". And "extremely isotropic". Why alter an absolute? Things are either precise or isotropic or they are not. The absolutes are required for the argument to be effective. I can look around myself and see the universe is anisotropic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem#Basic_concept "This presents a serious problem; if the universe had started with even slightly different temperatures in different areas, then there would simply be no way it could have evened itself out to a common temperature by this point in time" Why do they make the assumption it did, the whole problem is created by the conditional IF, wouldn't the more simple answer be to say then it didn't? If we go to the point of the Big Bang singularity, then the universe is definately isotropic, a point is uniform in all directions. All directions are 0, 0=0.

Yeah all good, gonna go rest anyway, nice talking to you. Evidence found for the Higgs boson direct decay into fermions Jun 22, 2014http://phys.org/news/2014-06-evidence-higgs-boson-fermions.html

i) The energy discrepancies involved between inflation and dark energy are directly related to what I was getting at earlier, the universe begins with only bosons, this means there is an over abundance of inflatons. Inflation is initially very rapid but as fermions are created from the energy removed from the inflaton scalar field and allowed to stay in existence, (via inflation preventing their annihlation), inflation slows down. After this initial burst the massive fermions are able to exert a gravitational field on space via the higgs field. Matter begins to clump, baryons are assembled, and photons decouple from the plasma (standard cosmological stuff). After the initial inflation there is a gradual return of energy via fermions decaying or meeting their anti particle (the probability is increased due to clumping of matter via gravity) and giving energy back to the inflaton field. This is directly proportional to a loss of their influence gravity on gravity via the higgs field. This gradual return or trickle effect is the cause of the gradually accelerating expansion we observe. At some point in the future the inflaton field will again be strong enough to overcome the higgs and cause a second inflation. This inflate and stop, trickle back up, can repeat many times, but it's also possible for it to completely exhaust the inflaton field and strengthen the higgs to a point where a big crunch occurs. And repeat. ii)When bosons create a fermion pair, no mass or energy is added to or subtracted from the universe right? But the higgs field effects fermions, but not bosons, correct? Just as particles can be created by gravity, so they too can be created by inflation. Gravity can pull a VP pair apart so they cannot annihilate, while inflation pushes a VP pair apart. They're inverse and two sides of a symmetry. You kind of lost me with the relativity stuff, but inflation flattens space time. And causality is all the matters, independant observers can see what they like yet still experience they same fate.

It's my personal opinion, that as biological beings, not adapted for these questions, the graph of knowledge and certainty assymptotes somewhere before truth. Perhaps we can create a hitch hikers guide style AI to help us out, but just like "42", who says we'll be capable of understanding the answer, or even asking the question. Well, my personal pet theory is that the inflaton (which I also think is involved in dark energy observations), lends energy to the creation of mass and that energy is depleted in the process, it also creates the conditions where by VP pairs cannot annihilate, by expanding the space between them so fast that they never meet. So as expansion accelerates, the creation of mass increases, sometimes it just pulls in the reigns and slows inflation back to a trickle, but other times it can reach a critical value instantaneously everywhere and crunch back in on itself. Edit: disregard instantaneously everywhere, that makes no sense relativistically - or does it, if everything is receeding from everything else at faster than the speed of light due to spatial expansion? Wouldn't every particle all observe the same frame of reference, which would be none, because no light could reach them.

But they're not just "FORCED" upon us, because we have measured them experimentally right?

Well, I'd kind of rather make those speculative statements than just say, "I don't know, therefore god". But yes, I still don't know, but I like the idea. I just feel the idea that spatial expansion and creation of mass from energy are interconnected contains some kind of special beauty. To me it's appealing since it leads to a cyclic universe which conserves all energy and also resets entropy. But I won't get into that one, because violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics is another huge topic. I'll die before we ever know, at best we'll just have the next best (or maybe the one after that) approximation of the truth. Anyway thanks for helping this drunken armchair physicist out

I asked doctor google and found that venn diagram, it helped slightly. So under super symmetry, I can fit my pet theory lol.... I know that's not how science works, but I have a very visual way of thinking and many other ideas of mine all flow off the one matter and energy inter conversion. lol yes, I realise this, like I say I don't trust my maths when drinking. Maybe you can help me out, since E=Mc2 is derirved from a quadratic equation, what is the other solution? It just seems odd to me that if a particle and an antiparticle, can annihilate to produce energy, that the opposite where energy, creates a particle anti particle pair wouldn't be possible. As with virtual particles they would annihilate again, since they would be created close, but in the big bang space is expanding so fast they would be removed from each other and unable to annihilate. So, we assume the moment of the big bang, the universe existed as a singularity. In this state fermions could not exist, because they would be occupying the same space. Bosons however could exist. I also am either to stupid to use multiquote or its not supported in this browser.......